Wrapping of nodes into a document

Norm: So we should say "element,
processing-instruction, or document nodes", yes?

Mohamed: That would be half the
question, but the other half would be to say on the select that
only nodes of certain types will be wrapped as document
nodes.

Norm: So we need to make it clear
that what is selected can be a document.

Murray: It's clear to me that
what appears on any output must be a document. A wrapper around
a bunch of attributes is not a document.
... We've already established the rules, so we just need to
clarify it.

Alessandro: It could be one
document or a sequence of documents.

Norm: But I think Murray is
right, we just need to clarify what select can select.

pipeline library

Norm: So the question is, if you
hand a pipeline *library* to a processor should it run a
particular pipeline.
... Seems to me that the implementation should take an option
to specify which library

Rui: It's like make or ant,
defaulting to a particular target.

Murray: But we're not recreating
Make here

Rui: Some of the use cases are
very similar

Murray: I seem to recall having
this discussion; we said you can run a pipeline by name; it
feels wrong to run a library.

Norm: I think the Make/ant use
case is a little bit compelling

Norm muses out loud about running the first
pipeline

Murray: If we're going to go down
this road, I think we should provide explicit syntax.

Norm: Do we want to provide
explicit syntax for this?

Alessandro: I'm not moved; I see
why Make and ant do it, it doesn't seem like it's a very large
distinction between a Makefile and a library that would be
used; but we're having this distinction in XProc.
... So it makes sense to me that what you run is a pipeline not
a library.

Rui: You can run a jar file if
the manifest gives a default class.

<alexmilowski> +1

Murray: I don't think we should
do this as an afterthought; and I don't think we should do
this.
... It seems like creeping featurism.

Question: should we add a feature to establish
the default pipeline in a pipeline-library?

Y: 2; N: 6 (3 concur)

Norm: I don't see support for it.
Anyone object to leaving it out of V1?

Murray wonders what Richard and Henry would
have said. Norm does too, for that matter.

Murray: Do we need to have a
section that makes our vagueness more explicit.

<alexmilowski> "Infoset
Processing

<alexmilowski> At a minimum,
an XML document is represented and manipulated as an XML
Information Set. The use of supersets, augmented information
sets, or data models that can be represented or conceptualized
as information sets should be allowed, and in some instances,
encouraged (e.g. for the XPath 2.0 Data Model).

<alexmilowski> "

<alexmilowski> We say that in
our requirements document.

Norm: What's now in 2.6.1
probably needs to be further up in the document

Alex: I think we need to say
something explicit about being based on the Infoset

Murray: I think what goes between
the steps is a putative XML document. It could be an infoset,
it could be an XDM, it could be an XPath 1.0 NodeSet, it could
be any number of different things. And it depends on your
implementation how you're going to do that.
... We want you to bear in mind however, that it is something
that could be mapped into an XML document. We're talking about
a theoretical, or putative, document.

Alex: That's what using infoset
would give us.

Norm: I think what we have in
2.6.1 is probably good enough, we should just move it
up.